Forums
New posts
Search forums
What's new
Articles
Latest reviews
Author list
Classifieds
Log in
Register
What's new
Search
Search
Search titles and first posts only
Search titles only
By:
New posts
Search forums
Menu
Log in
Register
Install the app
Install
Forums
Rifles, Reloading, Optics, Equipment
Rifles, Bullets, Barrels & Ballistics
A 7mmMag showed up on my doorstep.
JavaScript is disabled. For a better experience, please enable JavaScript in your browser before proceeding.
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an
alternative browser
.
Reply to thread
Message
<blockquote data-quote="Fitch" data-source="post: 372598" data-attributes="member: 19372"><p>Decision:</p><p> </p><p>168's will be Plan A. That's why I asked. The drawing board has to meet up with the real world now and again. </p><p> </p><p>Discussion:</p><p> </p><p>The universal 168 recommendation, along with pictures of success at distances I've never even shot at paper got my attention. It's hard to argue with success.</p><p> </p><p>I do think there is a good chance this rifle will stablize the 180 - I checked that against the Berger web page. It does two turns of the cleaning rod in 16-1/2" based on doing the measurement 3 times and getting the same distance plus or minus an 1/8" so it's some place in the neighborhood of an 8-1/2" twist barrel - the barrel is like new so it should be able to impart the twist to the bullet. Berger says a 9" twist should work. </p><p> </p><p>Speaking of the barrel, I've had it soaking with WipeOut since it arrived (refreshing it every 8 hours or so) and have it squeaky clean. Looking at it with a borescope the barrel looks pretty good for a factory barrel. The throat area looks just barely broken in. Lands are shiny smooth in the lead area. Finish is pretty good for most of the barrel length. It shows some light tool marks out near the muzzle but nothing unusual. The rest of it looks really good.</p><p> </p><p>The only "clumk" is that throat is slightly off center. At least the lands don't extend quite evenly to the neck/throat step. They go all the way with little to no freebore for most of the way around but get shallower and shallower and finally two of them are about half a borescope window from the step. Not optimal, but this isn't unusual in a factory chamber. I've seen it in Remingtons, Savages, and other rifles I've looked in. In fact the only factory rifles in my safe with what I'd call perfect chamber throats are the two CZ527's (Hornet and .223).</p><p> </p><p>In any event, the rifle doesn't look like it's had more than a few rounds through it. If I don't like the boat paddle stock I can get a replacement from Boyd's and pillar bed it into that easily enough. So, over all, this rifle looks like it's a good place to start. </p><p> </p><p>But I digress. Been sitting here doing some studies of the Berger 168 and a hot fresh cuppa-Joe. </p><p> </p><p>Looking at the lethality chart in Litz's book, page 253, there isn't much difference between the 168 and the 180. The 168 is good for white tail to 1,150, Mule deer to 800, and Elk to 425. The 180 is 1,225, 850, and 450 respectively. That isn't much difference at all. It certainly isn't going to leave an animal standing with the 168 and drop it with the 180. If one shot with either bullet gets it, they both will get it.</p><p> </p><p>There is surprisingly little difference in wind drift. Less than an inch at 1,000 using Berger's ballistic SW and the G7 BC for both bullets. Quite frankly, in the sense that it's within the calculation error, the drift for both bullets is the same. </p><p> </p><p>The energy for the 180 is greater by 39 ft-lbs which again is essentially the same energy given the uncertainties involved. ES variation between shots can give that much.</p><p> </p><p>Bottom line, you guys pointed me in the right direction - the 168 will do the job on anything I'll be shooting. It has a PBR of 295 yards +/- 3" from line of sight zeroed at 250 yards. That covers the longest shot I could have where I do most of my deer hunting. While there is a 2 yard advantage to the 180, that isn't enough difference to be significant. There is one place I could get an 800 yard shot at a coyote but I'll have to work up to that. </p><p> </p><p>This rifle has a 24" barrel on it. There is about a 100 fps velocity advantage to the 168 at the muzzle - it stilll has a 23fps advantage at 1,000 yards.. </p><p> </p><p>Bottom line, I have to say there isn't much difference between the 180 and the 168. I mean we are talking differences within the likely experimental error band. That being the case, the tie beaker is good field experience. There is good experience with the 168 so I'll go with the 168 as the initial choice. If it doesn't shoot in this rifle for some reason, plan B is to try the 180.. </p><p> </p><p>So, off to the Midway page to order some dies and bullets ... </p><p> </p><p>Thanks Folks</p><p>Fitch</p></blockquote><p></p>
[QUOTE="Fitch, post: 372598, member: 19372"] Decision: 168's will be Plan A. That's why I asked. The drawing board has to meet up with the real world now and again. Discussion: The universal 168 recommendation, along with pictures of success at distances I've never even shot at paper got my attention. It's hard to argue with success. I do think there is a good chance this rifle will stablize the 180 - I checked that against the Berger web page. It does two turns of the cleaning rod in 16-1/2" based on doing the measurement 3 times and getting the same distance plus or minus an 1/8" so it's some place in the neighborhood of an 8-1/2" twist barrel - the barrel is like new so it should be able to impart the twist to the bullet. Berger says a 9" twist should work. Speaking of the barrel, I've had it soaking with WipeOut since it arrived (refreshing it every 8 hours or so) and have it squeaky clean. Looking at it with a borescope the barrel looks pretty good for a factory barrel. The throat area looks just barely broken in. Lands are shiny smooth in the lead area. Finish is pretty good for most of the barrel length. It shows some light tool marks out near the muzzle but nothing unusual. The rest of it looks really good. The only "clumk" is that throat is slightly off center. At least the lands don't extend quite evenly to the neck/throat step. They go all the way with little to no freebore for most of the way around but get shallower and shallower and finally two of them are about half a borescope window from the step. Not optimal, but this isn't unusual in a factory chamber. I've seen it in Remingtons, Savages, and other rifles I've looked in. In fact the only factory rifles in my safe with what I'd call perfect chamber throats are the two CZ527's (Hornet and .223). In any event, the rifle doesn't look like it's had more than a few rounds through it. If I don't like the boat paddle stock I can get a replacement from Boyd's and pillar bed it into that easily enough. So, over all, this rifle looks like it's a good place to start. But I digress. Been sitting here doing some studies of the Berger 168 and a hot fresh cuppa-Joe. Looking at the lethality chart in Litz's book, page 253, there isn't much difference between the 168 and the 180. The 168 is good for white tail to 1,150, Mule deer to 800, and Elk to 425. The 180 is 1,225, 850, and 450 respectively. That isn't much difference at all. It certainly isn't going to leave an animal standing with the 168 and drop it with the 180. If one shot with either bullet gets it, they both will get it. There is surprisingly little difference in wind drift. Less than an inch at 1,000 using Berger's ballistic SW and the G7 BC for both bullets. Quite frankly, in the sense that it's within the calculation error, the drift for both bullets is the same. The energy for the 180 is greater by 39 ft-lbs which again is essentially the same energy given the uncertainties involved. ES variation between shots can give that much. Bottom line, you guys pointed me in the right direction - the 168 will do the job on anything I'll be shooting. It has a PBR of 295 yards +/- 3" from line of sight zeroed at 250 yards. That covers the longest shot I could have where I do most of my deer hunting. While there is a 2 yard advantage to the 180, that isn't enough difference to be significant. There is one place I could get an 800 yard shot at a coyote but I'll have to work up to that. This rifle has a 24" barrel on it. There is about a 100 fps velocity advantage to the 168 at the muzzle - it stilll has a 23fps advantage at 1,000 yards.. Bottom line, I have to say there isn't much difference between the 180 and the 168. I mean we are talking differences within the likely experimental error band. That being the case, the tie beaker is good field experience. There is good experience with the 168 so I'll go with the 168 as the initial choice. If it doesn't shoot in this rifle for some reason, plan B is to try the 180.. So, off to the Midway page to order some dies and bullets ... Thanks Folks Fitch [/QUOTE]
Insert quotes…
Verification
Post reply
Forums
Rifles, Reloading, Optics, Equipment
Rifles, Bullets, Barrels & Ballistics
A 7mmMag showed up on my doorstep.
Top